(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4447) AW: PDTR on Further Interoperability

[Bader, Reinhold]

> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-sc22wg5 at open-std.org [mailto:owner-sc22wg5 at open-std.org] Im
> Auftrag von John Reid
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2011 16:14
> An: WG5
> Betreff: (SC22WG5.4446) PDTR on Further Interoperability
> 
> WG5,
> 
> This is what I said on 4 April re the TR on Further Interoperability:
> >
> > Well, to avoid eventual cancellation, we must move faster. Here is an
> > alternative plan and I think it is better.
> >
> > 1. Bill creates a new draft by the end of this week that includes all
> > the items that do not need discussion.
> >
> > 2. The interop. email group takes ownership for 3 weeks to hash out
> > the other issues and create a new pdf by 1 May.
> >
> > 3. We have a 3-week informal WG5 ballot on whether this new version is
> > ready for PDTR ballot.
> >
> > 4. Bill creates a further new draft based on comments and the interop.
> > email group checks it.
> >
> > 5a. If we have reached consensus, the PDTR ballot starts in late May
> > or very early in June. The goal would be to get enough PDTR feedback
> > before the meeting to create a tentative DTR for issue after the PDTR
> > ballot finishes.
> >
> > 5b. Otherwise, we work hard before and at the meeting to reach
> > consensus and start the PDTR ballot soon afterwards. The "base
> > document" at this point will be the version created in step 4.
> 
> Unfortunately, May 1st has passed and we are not ready for a 3-week informal
> WG5 ballot (item 3). Bill and I think that we need to abandon this plan. Instead,
> Bill proposes a new plan:
> 
> 1. By 13 May, Bill constructs a new draft that includes all the edits arising from
> our ballot that he believes are likely to achieve consensus.
> 
> 2. The new draft is reviewed by the interop. email group until the end of May.
> 
> 3. By the beginning of June, Bill constructs a draft for use as the base document
> at the Garching meeting.

This would be the consensus draft resulting from the review in 2, I assume?
Any contentious items then would be processed in step 4 via the usual paper
submission procedure? It might be useful to somewhat extend the usual 
deadline for paper submission from 2 to 1 week before the meeting.

Regards
Reinhold

> 
> 4. The PDTR is constructed and approved during the meeting and the PDTR
> formal starts soon afterwards.
> 
> Note that this is essentially the fallback position in 5b above.
> 
> It is very important to create the PDTR by the end of the Garching meeting.
> Without this, eventual cancellation of the project is quite likely. No further
> extensions are allowed.
> 
> I need to revise the announcement and agenda for the Garching meeting, since
> the primary objective is now the construction of the PDTR rather than reviewing
> the PDTR Ballot comments. New documents are attached.
> 
> John.
> 
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.